rice fortification: status, evidence, and lessons learned ... · 1. mandatory fortification 2. rice...

Rice Fortification: Status, Evidence, and Lessons

Learned in Grain Fortification

Becky Tsang & Helena PachónRice Market & Technology Convention Punta Cana, Dominican RepublicJune 6, 2018

Overview1. Status of grain fortification

1. Mandatory fortification2. Rice fortification activities

2. Evidence for rice fortification1. Nutrient retention across supply chain2. Organoleptic/sensory3. Biological impact (efficacy/effectiveness)

3. Lessons learned in grain fortification4. Role of the private sector5. Key messages

http://FortificationData.org

Which countries have mandatory laws to fortify?


87 countries with mandatory flour or rice fortification*

1 3

Number of foods fortified

*With at least iron or folic acid


Wheat flour: 86 countries**With iron or folic acid


Maize flour: 16 countries**With iron or folic acid


Rice: 6 countries**With iron or folic acid

• United States• Costa Rica• Panama• Nicaragua• Papua New Guinea• Philippines


Rice: 6 countries**With iron or folic acid

• United States – allows dusting technology if label warns against washing

• Costa Rica – requires > 80% nutrient retention after washing• Panama – requires > 80% nutrient retention after washing• Nicaragua – requires > 80% nutrient retention after washing• Papua New Guinea – no retention language• Philippines – no retention language

Mali

LiberiaBenin

Rep. of Congo India: Odisha, Karnataka, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu

BangladeshMalaysia

Singapore

NicaraguaCosta RicaPanamaColombiaEcuadorPeru

PhilippinesPapua New Guinea

Global status of rice fortification programs

FFI database, Updated May 2018

USA

Brazil

Bhutan

Social safety net program (14)Mandatory legislation (6)

Workplace benefit program (2)Market-based activities (5)

Research study (2)

Myanmar

Kyrgyz Republic

Nepal

Voluntary standards (3)

Venezuela

Social Safety Net Programs• School feeding

programs• Food distribution to

targeted populations• Food aid• Related: workplace

benefit programs• Where in Latin

America: Nicaragua

PAGCOR

Voluntary Standards and Market-Based Activities• Not required by law• 3 countries have voluntary

standards (India, Bangladesh, Venezuela)

• Several countries in Latin America have voluntarily fortified rice available in the marketplace: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil

• Typically a premium product targeted at higher-income consumers buying branded product

GoldPower, Myanmar



2. Evidence for rice fortification1. Nutrient retention across supply chain2. Organoleptic/Sensory3. Biological impact (efficacy/effectiveness)


Evidence for rice fortification• Retention or Stability: during normal storage,

distribution, and processing of fortified food

Wirakartakusumah 1998; USAID no date

Storage Rinsing prior to cooking

Cooking

Evidence for rice fortificationSensory = Organoleptic

Image: IFT

Good Fortification = no changes!

Evidence for rice fortificationBiological Impact (efficacy and

effectiveness)*• Improved

immune system• Reduced number

of serious birth defects

• Better cognitive performance

*usually measured as nutrient levels in the blood

Food for the Poor, Nicaragua

Research criteria• Used ferric pyrophosphate as the iron compound

(other compounds cause dark coloring to the fortified kernel)

• Focused on hot extrusion or coating technology• Cold extrusion now generally considered less

acceptable from a sensory standpoint• Dusting is known to not retain nutrients when washed

• Sensory research: consumer panels

Nutrient retention after storageFortified rice produced through extrusion

FPP, ferric pyrophosphate

Study Iron (FPP)%

Zinc%

Vitamin A%

Thiamin (B1) %

Niacin (B3) %

Folic Acid (B9), %

Kuong 2016 (40C, 75% humidity)

89.4(180 days)

96.3(180 days)

51.5(180 days)

Lee 2000 (35C, 80% humidity)

47.1(168 days)

Li 2008a (40C, 100% humidity)

52.3(140 days)

Li 2008b (40C, 60% humidity)

100(224 days)

100(224 days)

100(224 days)

97(224 days)

Li 2011 (40C, 60% humidity)

57-75 (270 days)

Murphy 1992 (45C, 75% humidity)

0(182 days)

Pinkaew 2012 (30C, 76% humidity)

54-93(126 days)

Highest retention: iron and zinc; Intermediate retention: B vitamins; Most sensitive: vitamin A

Study Iron (FPP)%

Zinc%

Vitamin A%

Thiamin (B1) %

Niacin (B3) %

Folic Acid (B9), %

Kuong 2016 (40C, 75% humidity)

91.1 (180 days)

96.8 (180 days)

6.9 (180 days)

Nutrient retention after storageFortified rice produced through coating

FPP, ferric pyrophosphate

Highest retention: iron and zinc; Lowest retention: vitamin A

Nutrient retention after cooking*Fortified rice produced through extrusion

Study* Iron, % Zinc, % Vitamin A, %

Thiamin (B1), %

Folic acid (B9), %

Vitamin B12, %

Vitamin C, %

Murphy 1992 60, 96Lee 2000

Excess water75-87

77Hof 2007 - 62 32-47 48Pinkaew 2012 90.2Silveira 2016 50-65 75-96Wieringa 2014

Excess water46, 8858, 86

29, 9073, 93

14, 622, 4

15, 11741, 86

19, 13074, 95

Hackl 2017Excess water

10287.5

9563.7

*All studies used “absorption” cooking method, some also used “excess water” cooking methodAbsorption – all water absorbed into rice (e.g. 2:1 or 3:1 water:rice ratio)Excess water – more water used than necessary; excess water poured out after rice is cooked (e.g. 6:1 water:rice ratio)

Nutrient retention after cooking*Fortified rice produced through extrusion


Thiamin (B1), %

Folic acid (B9), %

Vitamin B12, %

Vitamin C, %

Murphy 1992 60, 96Lee 2000

Excess water75-87

77Hof 2007 - 62 32-47 48Pinkaew 2012 90.2Silveira 2016 50-65 75-96Wieringa 2014

Excess water46, 8858, 86

29, 9073, 93

14, 622, 4

15, 11741, 86

19, 13074, 95

Hackl 2017Excess water

10287.5

9563.7


Large variability in nutrient retention between different manufacturers using the same technology (e.g. Murphy,

Wieringa)

For vitamins, “excess water” compared to “absorption” cooking method resulted in lower retention in extruded

fortified rice

Nutrient retention after cooking*Fortified rice produced through coating


Thiamin (B1), %

Niacin (B3), %

Folic acid (B9), %

Vitamin B12, %

Peil 1981 - 70 18 18Wieringa 2014

Excess water88, 93

87, 12687, 94

85, 10955, 58

0, 5111, 147

76, 9048, 99

40, 129Hackl 2017

Excess water10047

8359

Losso 2017Excess water

8050-67

Less variability betwen coating manufacturers for iron, zinc, vitamin A, and vitamin B9 (Wieringa 2014)


Contradictory results for iron and zinc between coating and extrusion (Wieringa 2014 & Hackl 2017)

For vitamin A and vitamin B9, retention was greater with coating than extrusion (Wieringa 2014)

More recent studies showed greater retention (Wieringa, Hackl, Losso) than older study (Peil)

Retention/Stability summary:• Depends on many factors: heat, humidity,

packaging, nutrients included in the rice, cooking method, the rice fortification technology, the quality of the fortified kernel production process

• Minerals (iron, zinc) have better stability than vitamins but studies indicate both can be retained at adequate levels

• Assumption: if biological impact studies show improvement, nutrients were retained

Sensory qualityFortified rice produced through extrusion and coating

Study Sensory evaluation outcome(s)Shrestha 2003(coated, folic acid) No difference between fortified and unfortified rice

Moretti 2005 (extruded, iron)

Tested multiple kinds of micronized iron compounds. No difference between fortified and unfortified rice

Beinner 2010 (extruded, iron) No difference between fortified and unfortified rice

Radhika 2011 (extruded, iron) No difference between fortified and unfortified rice

Van 2014 (extruded, multivitamin)

Able to identify fortified rice but were neutral or favored fortified rice more than unfortified rice

Hussain 2014 (extruded, multivitamin)

Able to identify fortified rice but had similar preference for fortified and unfortified rice

de Pee 2016 (coated, extruded, multivitamin)

Children: No difference between fortified and unfortified rice / Women: Preferred the coated rice; liked extruded rice the same as unfortified rice

de Pee data presented at Rice Fortification Opportunities meeting in Dakar, Senegal in 2017. Unpublished.

Sensory/Organoleptic summary:• Studies asking participants to eat fortified

and non-fortified rice and compare differences:

• Participants (woman and children): In most cases could not tell the difference between fortified and unfortified rice

• In cases where they detected the fortified rice, they rated it favorably compared with unfortified rice

“…the provision of rice fortified with vitamins and minerals including iron, when compared with unfortified rice, probably improves iron status by reducing the risk of iron deficiency by 35%”“When the fortification of rice includes vitamin A, it may reduce both iron deficiency and vitamin A deficiency.”“When fortification includes folic acid, fortified rice may slightly increase serum folate concentrations."

Guideline: fortification of rice with vitamins and minerals as a public health strategy. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.



2. Evidence for rice fortification1. Nutrient retention across supply chain2. Organoleptic/Sensory3. Biological impact (efficacy/effectiveness)


Lessons learned in fortification• Recognize limitations – mandatory fortification

is a blunt tool, less able to target populations• Feasibility and compliance are linked – much

easier to regulate ~10 rice mills (Costa Rica) compared to ~10,000 mills (Philippines)

• Voluntary fortification and mandatory fortification have different goals

• Voluntary fortification: added-value premium product for higher income consumers

• Mandatory fortification: improve nutrition in the general population

Private sector role in mandatory fortification• Fortification champions: rice is not just

carbohydrates – it can improve health outcomes

• Resource to identify opportunities and gaps – you know your industry best

• Active participant in discussions to develop legislation and regulations – the private sector implements rice fortification

Key messages (1)1. Rice fortification is less practiced

on a global scale but activities are increasing

2. Retention and stability studies difficult to compare, but generally retention follows: iron, zinc > B vitamins > vitamin A

3. Sensory studies have shown generally good acceptability

Key messages (2)3. Voluntary fortification does not

reach the masses, but mandatory can have broad coverage

4. Industrially milled rice will be easier to fortify (and regulate) than rice milled in small-mills

5. We need more private sector champions in fortification!

Contact:

[email protected]

[email protected]

For more information:www.FFInetwork.org

www.Facebook.com/FFInetwork

https://twitter.com/FFINetwork

Join the Food Fortification Initiative group on Linked In

rice fortification: status, evidence, and lessons learned ... · 1. mandatory fortification 2. rice...

Documents